My experiences of Scottish justice especially in relation to fraud in Scottish Enterprise.

Wednesday, 19 April 2017

LIST OF INACCURACIES COMMUNICATED BY THE POLICE INVESTIGATIONS AND REVIEW COMMISSIONER IN THE SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE

Mr
Eddie Cairns

72
Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW
G21 4HP

19
April 2017

Mr Ilya Zharov

Head of Reviews & Policy

The
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner

Hamilton
House

Hamilton
Business Park

Caird
Park

Hamilton
ML3 0QA

Dear Mr Zharov,

DPA SECTION 10 NOTICE

I refer to your
letter dated 18 April 2017.

My letter to
you dated 12 April 2017 included the following statements, reproduced here in
italics for convenience:

Every wider issue that you raised in your letter dated 8
February 2017 added to the inaccuracies about me unlawfully held and processed
by the PIRC as detailed in my letter to you dated 9 February 2017.

Consequently, I want to submit formally
a new Section 10 Notice under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 in
respect of the additional inaccuracies about me held and processed by the PIRC
that I already identified in my letters dated 9 February 2017 and 11 February
2017.

This letter
contains details of the additional inaccuracies in question therefore the time
for responding will be extended accordingly.

The additional
inaccuracies are reproduced below in italics for convenience and my explanatory
notes follow in normal type:

1.As
you are aware, you asked PCCS to review how Strathclyde Police had handled your
complaints about what you perceived to be an incomplete investigation into
allegations you made back in 1993.

No I did not. I
asked the PCCS to review two letters sent to me by Strathclyde Police, one from
DCS Ruaraidh Nicolson dated 19 September 2008 and one from DI Graham Cowley
dated 26 March 2010 both of which contained several false statements about the
investigation in 1993 and subsequent reviews.

2.In
order to do that, PCCS had to request all relevant paperwork from Strathclyde
Police. That information was thereafter carefully assessed before a CHR report
was published stating whether, in the Commissioner’s view, the handling of your
complaint was to a reasonable standard.

Just
how carefully the PCCS assessed the relevant paperwork is revealed with
reference to the blatant falsehood upon which the recommendation to the police
was based, namely that I had supposedly written 82 letters of complaint to the
police.

I wrote several
letters to the PCCS exposing the many lies contained in that disgracefully
inept report that can still be confirmed as lies with reference to relevant
documentary evidence.

3.Whilst
you remain of the view that the initial investigation was incomplete ....

I
have never expressed the view that the initial investigation was incomplete. I
plainly stated that the police carried out no investigation at all and I
provided a copy of the Scottish Enterprise report on their investigation along
with an attached compliments slip signed by DS Watters the police officer
supposedly in charge of the investigation showing that he had simply endorsed
Scottish Enterprise’s own manifestly defective report.

You
have the proofs I provided showing that in response to overwhelming evidence
confirming the operation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in
1993 involving Scottish Enterprise and the police, which evidence was produced
by the government in February 2003 under the terms of the Data Protection Act
1998 and was immediately passed on to the police, the police disgracefully and
unlawfully took swift action in July 2003 to have me categorised as a vexatious
litigant.

Contrary
to your unconvincing and indeed fake argument that they did this because of my ‘continued attempts to take legal action
against Strathclyde Police’ the police were in reality acting to cover up
their own criminal acts in 1993.

Why
did the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive write to Scottish Enterprise’s
solicitors informing them that action was being taken against me as a matter of
urgency to have me categorised as a vexatious litigant? How does that fact fit
with your pretence about the police taking that action in response to my
supposed ‘continued attempts to take
legal action against the police’? Indeed it does not fit because your angle
is a blatant falsehood.

I
provided for the police a copy of that letter to Scottish Enterprise’s
solicitors which amounted to very serious evidence of corruption and of
criminal interference with ongoing civil actions but the police, surprise
surprise, completely ignored it and so did the PCCS.

At
that time the police were supposedly carrying out a review of the new evidence
but clearly acted corruptly to nullify my legal rights before carrying out that
review which was abruptly terminated in 2005 before further important evidence
that the police had arranged to pick up from me was in fact picked up although
I had telephoned and written to remind the police of that. The police never did
collect that evidence.

The supporting evidence that I provided to
you included a copy of the letter sent by Ms Claire Cullen at the Office of the
Solicitor to the Scottish Executive to solicitors Anderson Fyfe who were at
that time acting for Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and
Scottish Enterprise director Mr Andrew Downie, my opponents in separate live
civil actions and, simultaneously, suspects in the review of the criminal
investigation based upon the same allegations relating to the £187,069 fraud.

‘I refer to previous correspondence, and in
particular to my colleague’s letter to you dated 7 July 2004.’

‘The Lord Advocate has now instructed that
the Petition be presented in terms of section 1 of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland)
Act 1898. Counsel has been instructed and has been asked to deal with this
Petition promptly.’

‘Yours faithfully,’

‘Claire F Cullen’

A copy is attached again.

The live civil actions and the criminal
investigation were not concluded until several months later, in 2005.

This shows that during the time that he was
meant to be independently directing a criminal investigation by Strathclyde
Police into allegations of fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice the Lord Advocate was in reality, and in the full knowledge of the
Scottish Government, secretly colluding with the suspects to nullify my related
civil claims against them.

Outrageously, the suspects were being
informed by the Scottish Government that the Lord Advocate was taking urgent
action against me, the whistleblower at the centre of the allegations of
criminality, even before the criminal investigation had been concluded and
before important evidence that the police had undertaken in writing to collect
from me had in fact been collected for consideration. That evidence was
actually never collected by the police, providing additional grounds for grave
concern about the conduct of the Lord Advocate and the Scottish
Government.

The letter proves that the Lord Advocate was
not acting independently at all, nor was he acting in the public interest or in
the interests of justice, and that individuals in the Scottish Government were
indeed involved in the alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The
letter also reveals that the Scottish Government had already been corresponding
with the solicitors acting for my opponents for some time, since it refers to
previous correspondence on the matter. The Lord Advocate’s supposed independent
direction of the police and prosecutors had actually been biased against me
from an early stage, contrary to the most fundamental requirements of justice,
completely at odds with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention
on Human Rights, and with the collusion of named individuals acting for the
Scottish Government, which is absolutely disgraceful.

This matter will inevitably have to be
addressed properly in due course and those who persist in trying to cover for
the corrupt conduct of their colleagues will get what they deserve, as has been
shown to be the case in numerous other instances of corruption. The public are
very unforgiving towards those who effectively condone the theft of a
substantial amount of taxpayers’ money.

4.....
there is nothing in the documentation provided to suggest that the information
is factually inaccurate.

Contrary
to your statement that there is nothing in the documentation provided to
suggest that the information is factually inaccurate I actually provided
overwhelming documentary evidence proving that this section contains several
inaccurate statements about this case and about me.

What
did Scottish Enterprise’s solicitors have to do with my supposed continued
attempts to take legal action against Strathclyde Police?

Why
have the PCCS, and now you personally, deliberately disregarded this crucial
evidence and misrepresented the facts on this point?

5.However,
it is a matter of fact that you made more than one attempt to raise legal
proceedings against Strathclyde Police.

‘More
than one attempt’, meaning two attempts here, does not equate to ‘continued attempts’. Your angle here is
frankly pitiful.

Regardless of
any number of alleged attempts in that regard the available evidence proves
that my categorisation as a vexatious litigant was in fact directly targeted to
interfere with my claims against Scottish Enterprise.

6.It
is also a matter of fact that Strathclyde Police successfully raised an action
against you in terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898.

You
have culpably omitted to mention that Strathclyde Police were supposed to have
been conducting a criminal review under the direction of the Lord Advocate at
the time the Lord Advocate raised this petition and contacted the agents for my
opponents in related civil actions.

This
is particularly inexcusable since you know that external scrutiny by the
Faculty of Advocates and the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales
held that I have grounds for a formal complaint against the Lord Advocate for
unlawfully interfering in live civil actions and misdirecting the police.

7.Accordingly,
the information referred to is factually correct.

No
it is not factually correct. It is instead a disgraceful manifestation of the
police’s inordinate and corrupt efforts to cover up their participation in a
conspiracy with other public authorities to pervert the course of justice in
this case.

You
are already well aware of the documentary evidence supporting my allegations
about such failures by the police over a prolonged period since you personally
referred my allegations and proofs to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal
Service in November 2016.

8.It
is accurate to say that all of your correspondence stems from your
dissatisfaction with how the police dealt with allegations you made in 1993.

No
it most certainly is not accurate to say that all of my correspondence stems
from my dissatisfaction with how the police dealt with allegations I made in
1993. I formally call upon you to retract that damaging falsehood about me.

As
can be verified with reference to the 82 letters in question, which I have
copies of, the vast majority were simply covering letters providing additional
proofs relating to this case as I obtained them from various sources. For
example, several were covering letters accompanying new proofs I obtained from
Audit Scotland in 2009 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.

In
that regard, Audit Scotland’s disclosures to me in 2009 show that Audit
Scotland recognised years ago that official responses from Scottish Enterprise
and the Scottish Office in this case had been ‘disingenuous’.

Documents disclosed
by Audit Scotland included the following statements in a document headed Notes
from review of papers submitted by E Cairns, prepared by Audit Scotland’s Mr
Jim Martin, dated 20 August 2004 and reproduced here in italics for
convenience:

Mr
Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in
the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been
omitted from the July accounts but for his actions .......................
Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is
academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to
exclude them from the July accounts.

Responses
to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office
Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting
matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate
misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here
................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as
was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF
monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their
receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was
allegedly instructed to exclude them.

..............
If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn
in.

Of course you already know
all this because I provided this evidence to you in recent months and it had
been provided to the PCCS previously, again to no avail.

9.Accordingly,
I do not consider the information contained in our report as inaccurate.

Only
by applying the warped and dishonest reasoning disgracefully displayed by you
in this point could anyone conclude that the information contained in your
report on this point is not inaccurate.

I
did not write 82 letters expressing dissatisfaction with the police. Your insulting
lie about me on this point is outrageous.

10.In
addition, since the publishing of our CHR report in August 2010, you have
continued to write to Strathclyde Police, now Police Scotland, and made a
number of new allegations and complaints.

A
number of new allegations and complaints? How many? Another 82? In fact I have
raised only a very few complaints against the police since 2010 and every one
has been valid but rejected because of the PIRC’s defective recommendation that
the police should ignore me.

Of
course, again, you already know this so how many complaints from me have been
responded to by the police. I happen to have the exact figure and so do you.
NONE.

Any
defence of qualified privilege that you may present in defence of a defamation
action would easily be countered because of the malice I could prove you to
have acted upon by knowingly asserting damaging falsehoods about me.

Twice
in recent years I have been granted authority by the Court of Session to raise
actions despite the vexatious actions order.

You
ought to retract those damaging falsehoods about me which the evidence
available to you shows to be false.

11.Accordingly,
the up-to-date number of letters sent by you to Police Scotland is
significantly higher.

So
now you are quietly dropping the PIRC falsehood that the 82 letters were letters
of complaint? Now you are suggesting that just writing a number of letters over
a period of several years is unacceptable?

I
challenge you to identify any one of my letters to the police that was
unjustified.

In reality the
number of letters sent over many years reflects the multitude of proofs I have
obtained supporting my position.

12.On
this basis, it is unclear why you consider that the information in our CHR
report, which is no longer readily accessible to the public, is causing you
substantial unwarranted damage or distress.

You
appear to have a very short and extremely selective memory. Only a few months
ago the unjustified recommendation to the police based upon this lie about me
supposedly having written 82 letters of complaint to the police was applied to
nullify my valid complaint about misconduct by ACC Nicolson that the PIRC has
already held not to have been reasonably handled by the SPA.

13.In
so far as the recommendation made by PCCS is concerned, the extract in question
is factually correct.

No
it is not factually correct.

In
fact you had already been notified of the far more probable reason for ACC
Nicolson’s refusal to carry out the Chief Constable’s direction to contact me,
namely in order to avoid any consideration of his own previous dishonest
involvement in this case which he knows would not stand up to any
scrutiny.

The
PIRC relatively recently received several relevant proofs of that from me which
you appear to want to forget about.

14.Thereafter
Mr Milne expressed his assessment on whether ACC Nicolson’s actions (not
responding to your correspondence) were indeed justified in his opinion. There
is nothing in this extract that I can identify as factually incorrect and, in
any event, you will appreciate that we cannot correct the letter sent to you by
Mr Milne.

But
you can correct the PIRC’s defective recommendation to the police which is what
ACC Nicolson and Mr Stuart Milne relied upon to ignore my competent complaints.

No
they are most certainly not reliable and factually correct information as
already explained above.

Of
course you already know this because of the PIRC’s prior involvement in this
case and because you have received multiple proofs from me exposing your
reasoning here as dishonest.

To
restore some perspective, this is an important case that ought to be adequately
investigated and tested for truth and accuracy in accordance with the terms of
the Data Protection Act 1998. Your false and derogatory comments about me and
about this case confirm the crassness of your pretence that it is unclear why I
consider that the information in question is causing me substantial unwarranted
damage or distress.

You
have in fact amply demonstrated clearly in your letter why I consider that the
information in question is causing me substantial unwarranted damage or distress.

In
summary, the figures in the monthly management accounts at Enterprise Ayrshire
were the basis for obtaining public money. Evidence available confirms that I
had been instructed to commit a criminal act in Enterprise Ayrshire, treated
with open hostility by the other members of staff who had already agreed to
enter into the conspiracy, summarily dismissed before any investigation by
Scottish Enterprise had taken place, stonewalled thereafter and unjustifiably
publicly disparaged, rendering me unemployable in my profession.

Perusal
of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with other available
evidence confirms that material evidence was concealed by employees of
Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise in the context of assisting the
police enquiry in this case, a very serious matter.

The
investigating accountant made no contact with me whatsoever and disregarded all
the documentary evidence in support of my allegations that was available on the
premises of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.

(b)My witness statements to Detective
Sergeant William Watters on 7 September 1993.

Since
the Scottish Enterprise report was dated 20 August 1993 the police ought to
have ensured that the report was updated.

(c)My letter to Detective Superintendent
Gordon Ferrie, dated 19 August 1993, and the documents I enclosed with that
letter ‘showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the
balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire’.

(e)Evidence of my regular monthly
reconciliations to the financial ledger which were held in the Enterprise
Ayrshire Excel files at my workstation, in particular the reconciliation which
had been forwarded to Mr Gary Tracey by email showing the discrepancy in the
first accounting month in which it had arisen, June 1993. The Scottish
Enterprise report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this
reconciliation had been carried out.

Mr
Tom Woodbridge, Scottish Enterprise Head of Finance, and Enterprise Ayrshire
employees Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracy and Ms Janie Maxwell knew that I had
produced reconciliations showing the £187,069 to have been omitted from the
balance sheet in the June 1993 and July 1993 accounts that had been presented
to me for reconciliation.

The money had been received in June 1993 and
should have been entered into the accounts in that month but had not been
entered until 18 August 1993.

(h)My allegation that I
had been incited by Mr Gary Tracey to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the
accounts.

My
allegation was supported by the note blocking the journal entry and the actions
of finance workers who had accepted the invitation to falsify the accounts.

(i)The fact that one of the bank
accounts through which the £187,000 in question was transferred was not in the
name of Enterprise Ayrshire, contrary to what was falsely stated in the
Scottish Enterprise report, but was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey. This is the
person that the evidence shows had instructed the financial irregularities and
had thereby corrupted staff more junior to him.

(j)The fact that the bank account in the
name of Mr Gary Tracey was not a high interest call account managed by the
Royal Bank of Scotland on EA’s behalf, contrary to what was falsely stated in
the Scottish Enterprise report. Deposits into Mr Gary Tracey’s account did not
mature at call. They matured one month and one day after the deposit had been
made. The bank did not manage Mr Gary Tracey’s account.

(k)My allegation that I had been
questioning the financial irregularities in my reconciliation work and had
objected in writing to the instruction to comply.

(l)My allegation that I had approached
Mr Tom Woodbridge, Scottish Enterprise Head of Finance, for help when I had
been immediately threatened with dismissal by my one of my supervisors, Ms
Janie Maxwell, when she read my email recording my objections to the financial
irregularities but that Mr Woodbridge had declined to give me any support.

(m)The evidence showing that the
£187,000 had been re-deposited in a high interest bank account on 3 August
1993, maturing not at call but on 4 September 1993, in the name of Mr Gary
Tracey while still omitted from the company’s financial ledger whereas it ought
to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise in the month following receipt.
This indicated that the senior finance staff had no intention of handling this
money in accordance with correct procedure until I raised my objection in
writing on 17 August 1993.

(n)My allegation that I had been
instructed to overlook in my account reconciliation work the deliberate
omission from the accounts of a cash grant for £187,069 received on 25 June
1993 by electronic transfer from the European Regional Development Fund.

(o)My allegation that the reason for the
financial irregularities was to gain interest that would otherwise not be
gained.

(p)Any recognition that in Scots law the
definition of theft is taking control of an asset that does not belong to you
without the owner’ s permission.

(q)Any recognition that fraud has been
defined as ‘the bringing about of any practical result by false pretences.’
(Macdonald, 52)

In
fact the SE report itself, although inadequate in several crucial respects, did
nevertheless contain points that indicated fraudulent activity:

(a)It concluded that £187,069 that had been
received on 25 June 1993 ought to have been entered into the accounts at that
time but was not entered into the ledger until 18 August 1993.

(b)It recorded that there was a note
including the words No journal required
as per G. Tracey next to the entry for this money in the cash book. This
indicated that the irregularity was instructed by Mr Tracey, not an oversight
or a mistake.

(c)No
plausible explanation was stated in the SE report to have been elicited from Mr
Tracey or from anyone else.

(d)However, the note corroborated my witness
statements and my email dated 17 August 1993 alleging that I had also been
incited to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in respect of this
cash.

I
declined the invitation to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts and
the immoderate responses and blatant dishonesty of more senior workers in
Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise as revealed in the available
evidence further corroborated my allegations of financial irregularities.

What
did these managers have to hide? Why did they falsely pretend that there was no
substance to my allegations? Why did they pretend that investigations by
Scottish Enterprise and Strathclyde Police had found no wrongdoing when in fact
they had found that £187,069 was missing from the accounts for exactly the
period I had alleged while it was deposited in a high interest bearing bank
account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey? Why was an immediate correction to the
accounts made in the morning of 18 August 1993 within hours of my written
objections to the irregularities and before any investigation had been carried
out? Clearly, the managers already knew that the accounts had been falsified
and needed to be corrected because effectively the game was up.

The
PIRC already has copies of documentary evidence supporting these points.

Your
paltry disapproval of my determined efforts to put matters right in these
circumstances would tend to induce nausea. If you fundamentally disapprove of
complaints against the police regardless of their justification, as the record
shows in this case, are you sure you are in the right job?

16.That
letter formed the basis of your application to the PIRC for a CHR and was
quoted in our CHR report for reference only. In so far as quotes from that
letter which refer to the recommendation made by PCCS back in August 2010, I
consider that there are no factual inaccuracies.

Yes
there are factual inaccuracies as plainly identified above.

I
am beginning to wonder if you are allowing your overt prejudice to cloud your
judgment in this case.

17.Police told to ignore complainer

Strathclyde Police has been advised to
have no further dealings with a man who has bombarded the force with complaints
against its officers for the past 17 years.

Edward Edelsten Cairns, Scotland’s
most prolific vexatious litigant, wrote 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde
Police between 2001 and 2009. His correspondence with officers and other public
bodies continued on a near weekly basis.

The letters are confusing and
difficult to understand, a report by John McNeill, Police Complaints
Commissioner for Scotland said. Mr McNeill found that a large amount of money
had been spent on dealing with the complaints, which started shortly after Mr
Cairns, 59, accused former colleagues from Enterprise Ayrshire of fraudulent
behaviour in 1993. The allegations were referred to the procurator-fiscal, who
decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute.

In his conclusions, Mr McNeill said:
“The Commissioner is aware that during the course of his review the applicant
has continued to write to Strathclyde Police regarding some of the above
complaints.’’

‘’A substantial amount of resources
has been expended by Strathclyde Police in dealing with the above complaints,
which in the vast majority of cases have been dealt with reasonably. In the
particular circumstances of this complaint, the Commissioner recommends that
Strathclyde Police no longer considers or responds to any complaint made by the
applicant which is directly related to those listed in this report.’’

“The Commissioner does not make this
recommendation lightly, but for the reasons stated considers it necessary to do
so.”

I refer again to
your letter dated 8 February 2017.

The following
statement in your letter, reproduced here in italics for convenience, merits
particular consideration:

'I fully accept that only 8 of those letters were
recorded formally as complaints about police.'

This admission
exposes as false all the PCCS’s disparaging statements about me detailed above.

At the time of
the PCCS’s published report on this case in 2010 there was considerable media
coverage of this point which greatly damaged my professional and personal
reputation unjustifiably as the above statements in the Herald complete with my
photograph illustrate.

In truth I did not bombard
the force with complaints against its officers for 17 years, I did not
write 82 letters of complaint to the police, my letters were not confusing and
difficult to understand, in fact most consisted of a single sentence covering
the submission of new evidence obtained at various times in subject access
disclosures under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998, a substantial
amount of resources had not been expended by Strathclyde Police in dealing with
82 letters of complaint from me, in fact the police only responded to about 4
of the genuine 8 letters of complaint, two of which letters had been swiftly
withdrawn by me in any event because I recognised that the officers involved
were young and inexperienced, the vast majority of the alleged 82 letters of
complaint had not been dealt with reasonably, in reality the vast majority,
about 95%, of my letters had been completely disregarded by the police despite
the fact that they had presented significant information and evidence to assist
the police in their enquiries into this case, and In the particular
circumstances of this complaint the Commissioner should not have recommended that
Strathclyde Police no longer considers or responds to any complaint made by me which
was directly related to those listed in his report.

You
have 21 days to respond to this Notice.

Since
these matters are of interest to the general public I have published this
letter on the internet.

About Me

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE
This story highlights the dangers involved in being a whistleblower. It relates how trying to resist instructions to falsify accounts in any establishment organisation, in this case Scottish Enterprise, can swiftly lead to unemployment, destruction of your professional reputation, homelessness and bankruptcy. In the longer term it can result in grinding poverty, social isolation, mental health problems, being falsely classified by the government as a persistent correspondent and a vexatious litigant. In my case I attained the dubious honour of being listed on the Court of Session website as the number one vexatious litigant in Scotland for 11 years so far (as at September 2016).
In reality however none of my cases was vexatious.